ArticleInternational ophthalmology2022
Use of machine learning to achieve keratoconus detection skills of a corneal expert.
Article in International ophthalmology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Utility of artificial intelligence in the diagnosis and management of keratoconus: a systematic review.Frontiers in ophthalmology · 2024Pooled it
- Artificial intelligence for detecting keratoconus.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Pooled it
- Machine Learning-Driven Transcriptome Analysis of Keratoconus for Predictive Biomarker Identification.Biomedicines · 2025Article
- Advances in machine learning for keratoconus diagnosis.International ophthalmology · 2025Review
- KeratoEL: Detection of keratoconus using corneal parameters with ensemble learning.Health science reports · 2024Article
- Potential applications of artificial intelligence in image analysis in cornea diseases: a review.Eye and vision (London, England) · 2024Review
- Keratoconus: imaging modalities and management.Medical hypothesis, discovery & innovation ophthalmology journal · 2024Review
- Keratoconus Diagnosis: From Fundamentals to Artificial Intelligence: A Systematic Narrative Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo construct an automatic machine-learning derived algorithm discriminating between normal corneas and suspect irregular or keratoconic corneas.
methodsA total of 8526 corneal tomography images of 4904 eyes obtained between November 2010 and July 2017 using a combined Scheimpflug/Placido tomographer were retrospectively evaluated. Each image was evaluated for acquisition quality and was labeled as normal, suspect irregular or keratoconic by a cornea specialist. Two algorithms were built. The first was based on 94 instrument-derived output parameters, and the second integrated keratoconus prediction indices of the device with the 94 instrument-derived output parameters. Both models were compared with the tomographer's keratoconus detection algorithms. Out of the 8526 images evaluated, 7104 images of 3787 eyes had sufficient acquisition quality. Of those, 5904 examinations were randomly chosen for construction of the models using the random forest algorithm. The models were then validated using the remaining 1200 examinations.
resultsBoth RF algorithms had a larger AUC compared with any of the tomographer's KC detection algorithms (p < 10
conclusionUsing the RF machine-learning algorithm, accuracy of discrimination between normal, suspect irregular and keratoconic corneas approximates that of an experienced corneal expert. Applying machine learning to corneal tomography can facilitate keratoconus screening in large populations as well as off-site screening of refractive surgery candidates.
Indexed as
Identifiers
35953576What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.